 |
 |
Henrik Theiling wrote: > Hi! > > Is it known whether _x_ in Latin _re:x_ was voiceless /ks/ or voiced > /gz/? Since the stem is in -/g/, I'm not sure. The evidence clearly points to _x_ always being [ks]. Likewise /b/ + /s/ was pronounced [ps] - whether one should write these _phonemically_ as /gs/ and /bs/ is another matter. But /gz/ is certainly incorrect. > So is there a difference in pronunciation compared to _pax_, whose stem > ends in -/k/? Nope. As for the final sound in _urbs_ (gen. urbis) and _stirps_ (gen. stirpis) where both /b/+/s/ and /p/+/s/ were pronounced [ps], Claudius introduced a new letter shaped like a reversed C (i.e. the IPA 'open-o' symbol) - but it fell into disuse after his death :) ====================================== Alain Lemaire wrote: > According to <a > href="http://www.omniglot.com/writing/latin2.htm">omniglot</a> , there are > two different ways of pronouncing x: /ks/ and /gz/. I regret to say that particular page of Omniglot contains quite a lot of errors in its description of the 'Classical Latin' pronunciation. It is a confusion of 'restored' pronunciation, Ecclesiastical (medieval) pronunciation, and *modern* conventions (e.g. pronouncing _th_ as /T/). It is, alas, quite unreliable. >So it could very well have been that 'rex' was pronounced /regz/ in 'the old days'. In the "old days" it was [re:ks]. -- Ray ================================== [log in to unmask] http://www.carolandray.plus.com ================================== "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760